NEAR THE MIDDLE OF THE FIRST CENTURY A.D., Paul wrote a pair of letters to a recently established congregation of Christians in the town of Thessalonica. The people to whom he addressed the two letters we now call 1 and 2 Thessalonians were for the most part new converts to Christianity who had grown up in, and hence were thoroughly socialized in, a Greek cultural environment. One of Paul’s major challenges was that of resocialization—helping these believers to learn, understand, and live by the very different social and ethical code of early Christianity.
What made this task particularly challenging was that these people were also facing intense persecution from the surrounding culture. As a result of their commitment to Jesus, they were experiencing social ostracism and isolation as well as physical attacks from society around them. As if this were not enough, Paul’s task was further complicated by a high degree of apprehension, misunderstanding, and speculation about the return of Jesus. The Thessalonians knew that Jesus was to return, but they were not sure when it might take place or what it meant for them. Not knowing what to think, they had become upset rather than hopeful, unsettled rather than strengthened, by the prospect of Jesus’ return.
The parallels between Paul’s first-century situation and contemporary times are hard to miss. The approaching millennium has served to heighten an already-intense interest in and speculation about the return of Jesus; at times it seems as though there is no end to a rising flood of books, radio and television shows, and now Web pages devoted to the subject. On a more somber note, even the secular news media has finally noticed that Christians are experiencing severe and sometimes deadly persecution in over eighty countries around the world. Furthermore, anyone involved in pastoring, teaching, or discipling other Christians knows that one of the major challenges facing Christians nearly everywhere today is that of helping believers break free from the shackles of a secular, self-centered, and often hedonistic mindset so that they can begin to think and live on the basis of a genuinely Christian view of reality. Like Paul, we face the challenge of resocialization (or “discipleship,” if you prefer): of helping people learn that there is an alternative to contemporary social behavior and ethics, and how to live out that alternative lifestyle consistently.
Granted that there are significant parallels between then and now, just how helpful can letters written over 1900 years ago be to us today? And if they are helpful (as I surely think they are), how and in what ways are they helpful? These are some of the questions I address in the following commentary. As we seek the contemporary significance of these ancient documents, we need to begin by understanding them in their original context and circumstances.
The City of Thessalonica
THESSALONICA (MODERN THESSALONIKI) was the largest and most important city in Macedonia. As the capital of the province it enjoyed numerous civic and commercial privileges, including the right to mint its own coins. In 42 B.C. it became a free city, governed by its own local rulers, a group of five or six men known as “politarchs” (NIV “city officials”; see Acts 17:6, 8). It was situated some ninety miles (150 kilometers) or so west of Philippi on the Via Egnatia, the great Roman highway that connected Rome with its eastern provinces, next to a good natural harbor at the head of the Thermaic Gulf. Major north-south trade routes also passed through Thessalonica, further enhancing its position as a wealthy commercial center.
Religiously Thessalonica offered something for nearly everyone.1 Not surprisingly for a Greek city, the traditional Greek cults and philosophic traditions were well represented, as were various mystery religions. Known for its early devotion to the cult of the Roman emperor, the city even minted coins declaring Caesar to be divine. It also boasted a sanctuary of the Egyptian gods, among whom Isis and Osiris were prominent. (An inscription recording the spread of the Egyptian cult from Thessalonica to other Greek cities offers an interesting parallel to 1 Thess. 1:8.) In contrast to Philippi (Acts 16:13), there was in Thessalonica a Jewish community large enough to support a synagogue (17:1). There is also archaeological evidence of local devotion to the “highest god” and local cults such as that of Cabirus, which during the first century A.D. was becoming the chief cult of the city. Finally, running through all this is a substantial tendency towards syncretism, a mixing of religious traditions.
Key elements of this religious activity were closely associated with civic and political concerns. In the ancient world religion was always closely linked to politics because dominant social groups realized that religion offered an effective means to legitimize and maintain their power and dominance. In Thessalonica city leaders fostered devotion to the imperial cult in order to solidify good relations with Rome. As a consequence, any perceived attack on the cult of the emperor was viewed as a serious threat to the city’s economic and political well-being. The local cult of Cabirus was sponsored by the city’s wealthy ruling aristocracy, not only because it reinforced to their advantage the hierarchical nature of Greco-Roman society but also because it gave to all citizens a shared sense of identity and unity. Thus to attack the cult—by proclaiming the exclusive claims of another deity, for example—was virtually to attack the city itself. In such an environment, to preach Christianity was tantamount to treason.
Christianity Comes to Thessalonica
IN A.D. 49, not long after Paul, Silas (Silvanus, cf. NIV note), and Timothy left Philippi, where they had “suffered and been insulted” (1 Thess. 2:2; cf. Acts 16:16–40), they came to Thessalonica. There they stopped, probably because of the presence of a sizable Jewish community and its synagogue. For the next three Sabbaths Paul in particular shared the Christian message in the synagogue, seeking to prove from the Scriptures that Jesus was the predicted Messiah, who had died and risen from the dead on their behalf. The apostle was successful in persuading “some of the Jews” (perhaps only a few), as well as a large number of “God-fearing Greeks” (Gentiles attracted to Judaism who regularly attended the synagogue services but who stopped short of full conversion) and “not a few prominent women” (Acts 17:2–4).
While these converts from the synagogue apparently formed the nucleus of the new congregation, a substantially larger number of converts came to faith directly from paganism as they “turned to God from idols” (1 Thess. 1:9). The workshop that Paul set up in order to support himself, in which he worked, as he put it, “night and day” (2:9), would have been a key place of outreach (and eventually discipleship as well). The private homes of converts, such as Jason, would also have provided a setting for evangelism and instruction. As a result, a new, predominately Gentile congregation came into existence. Paul, Silas, and Timothy devoted themselves to encouraging and instructing the recent converts in the basics of their new faith, becoming deeply attached to them in the process (2:8–12).
Almost from the beginning, however, those who accepted the gospel encountered opposition and hostility from those who were not persuaded by the preaching of Paul and his companions (1 Thess. 1:6; 2:14). This is hardly surprising. On the one hand, the synagogue would have been upset by the loss of members to a new cult. On the other hand, the conversion of leading women of the community inevitably brought the cult to the notice of civic leaders, to whom the proclamation of an alternative emperor (Jesus as the messianic King) would have sounded more than a little seditious.2 These two groups apparently made common cause against the missionaries and their converts, as civil charges were soon brought against them.
Luke describes the critical episode in Acts 17:5–9.3 After some disreputable folks from the marketplace (whom the KJV colorfully describes as “certain lewd fellows of the baser sort”) had been instigated to start a riot, they were encouraged to locate the visiting missionaries and haul them before the civil authorities. Failing to find Paul and Silas,4 they instead seized Jason and some other brothers (clearly members and supporters of the new movement, and perhaps its leaders) and basically charged them with treason for their allegiance to Jesus. The city officials dealt with the resulting turmoil by requiring Jason and the others to post bond, which effectively made them responsible for any further trouble caused by the missionaries.
Given this turn of events, Paul, Silas, and Timothy had little choice but to leave town. That Paul left unwillingly and sooner than he had intended is clear from 1 Thessalonians 2:17, in which he describes himself has having been “torn away” from his new friends and fellow believers. The sudden departure of the missionaries no doubt had a dramatic and shocking impact on the congregation, which unexpectedly found itself alone and facing “persecutions and trials” that severely tested their faith and perseverance (2 Thess. 1:4; cf. 1 Thess. 3:3).
The Setting and Occasion of 1 Thessalonians
FIRST THESSALONIANS 2:17–3:5 offers a glimpse of the emotional turmoil Paul and his companions experienced following their expulsion from Thessalonica. Two concerns seem to have been uppermost on Paul’s mind. (1) He was deeply concerned that the young congregation might collapse in the face of hostile external pressures. Even though he had warned them that such pressures would come (3:4), it is one thing to deal with them in theory and quite another to confront them in reality. Paul, apparently not sure that the new congregation was sufficiently instructed to deal with the difficulties and challenges facing them, admits to being afraid (3:5) that these new converts might be persuaded to abandon their commitment to Christianity, thereby wiping out all the time and effort he, Silas, and Timothy had invested.
(2) Paul was also concerned that his behavior and that of his companions might be misunderstood—or more likely, misrepresented—in a way that would call into question the validity and integrity of the gospel itself. Religious charlatans and frauds were a dime a dozen in the ancient world, and the way Paul and Silas slipped out of town in the middle of the night would have made it only too easy to pigeonhole them as just one more pair of rip-off artists out to scam people. From here it was only a short step to the conclusion that their message was no more truthful than they were, and thus the people might reject it along with them.
The missionaries’ first impulse was to return to Thessalonica as soon as possible. This they tried to do—in Paul’s case, repeatedly (2:18)—but for unspecified reasons (which he attributed to the working of Satan, 2:18) that proved to be impossible. Frustrated and anxious to learn what was happening in Thessalonica, Paul decided to send Timothy back in his place as his designated representative, in order to strengthen and encourage them (3:1–2). This he did from Athens (where he had arrived by way of Berea, Acts 17:10–15). After a brief time in Athens (17:16–34), Paul moved on to Corinth (probably arriving there in late summer, A.D. 50), where in collaboration with Aquila and Priscilla he began to evangelize that city (18:1–4).
It was while Paul was in Corinth that Timothy returned with the good news from Thessalonica that the congregation was not only standing fast and faithful in the face of persecution, but was even growing in faith and love (3:6–7), to the extent that it was becoming a model for believers throughout Macedonia and Achaia (1:7). The relief, joy, and encouragement Paul felt upon receiving the welcome news is evident throughout 1 Thessalonians, which he apparently wrote and sent to the Christians in Thessalonica immediately after Timothy’s arrival.
In the first part of this letter (1:2–3:13) Paul sought to encourage and strengthen the Thessalonians, to defend the integrity and truthfulness of the gospel message, and to affirm and develop his friendship with them as brothers and sisters. In the second part (4:1–5:24) Paul sought to encourage and instruct them regarding some specific matters of Christian living: holiness, sexual ethics, social relationships, the death of believers, the return of Jesus, and congregational behavior. This choice of topics almost certainly reflects something of Timothy’s assessment of the situation in Thessalonica; it may also reflect one or more questions raised by the Thessalonians themselves (notice the “now about” in 4:9 and 5:1, and the similar phrase in 4:13) and transmitted to Paul via Timothy (either orally or in writing).
The Setting and Occasion of 2 Thessalonians
IN CONTRAST TO 1 Thessalonians, we know next to nothing about the specific circumstances that led to the writing of 2 Thessalonians. That it was sent by the same three people as 1 Thessalonians and reflects so closely the language and structure of this letter strongly suggests that it was written not long after the first letter, while Paul, Silas, and Timothy were still in Corinth. We do not know how Paul became informed of the new developments in Thessalonica. In view of Thessalonica’s location between Philippi and Corinth, one possibility is that someone from the church in Philippi, delegated to deliver a financial gift to Paul in Corinth (see Phil. 4:15–16), shared with Paul information acquired while passing through Thessalonica. This would explain both how Paul learned enough of the situation to write a letter (notice 2 Thess. 3:11, “we hear”) and why his information seems rather vague at points (e.g., 2:2).
All we really have to go on are the three main topics Paul addresses in the letter: (1) the intense persecution the church was experiencing (1:3–12); (2) a misunderstanding about the Day of the Lord (2:1–12); and (3) disruptive behavior on the part of some members of the congregation (3:6–15). If these topics offer clues to the circumstances in Thessalonica, it would appear that (1) persecution had either broken out again and/or intensified; (2) a new misunderstanding about the return of Christ had arisen, perhaps under the influence of information allegedly from Paul (see the commentary on 2:2 for details) or based on a misunderstanding of his teaching; and (3) Paul’s initial efforts in 1 Thessalonians to deal with the matter of disruptive behavior were unsuccessful, and perhaps even provocative. This second letter represents Paul’s effort to deal with these matters while continuing the encouragement and instruction so evident in the first letter (see esp. 2 Thess. 2:13–3:5; also 1:3–12).
Some Technical Matters
Who Wrote the Letters?
BOTH 1 AND 2 Thessalonians were sent out under the name of not one but three people, Paul, Silas, and Timothy. The consistent use of first person plural pronouns (“we,” “us”) throughout both letters makes it clear that the inclusion of Silas and Timothy in the salutation is no mere formality (contrast Philippians, which includes Timothy in the prescript but uses the first person singular thereafter). All three missionaries stand together in the encouragement, instruction, and commands given to the Thessalonian congregation.5
At the same time, the order of the names and the occasional use of “I” (1 Thess. 2:18; 3:5; 5:27; 2 Thess. 2:5; 3:17) reveal that Paul was almost certainly the person who drafted or dictated the letters. Timothy, who had earlier served as the threesome’s representative to Thessalonica (1 Thess. 3:2, 5), may have delivered one or both of the letters. It is possible but undeterminable whether Silas was the one who wrote down Paul’s dictation.6
The Question of 1 Thessalonians 2:13–16
WHILE 1 THESSALONIANS IS widely accepted as genuinely Pauline, not a few scholars have rejected one section of it, 2:13–16, as a later non-Pauline interpolation into the letter.7 Arguments offered in support of this view include: (1) the condemnation of “the Jews” expressed here is said to contradict Paul’s hopeful attitude in Romans 11 regarding the salvation of the Jewish people; (2) the reference in verse 16 to a past judgment of the Jews is said to be a reference to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in A.D. 70, well after the traditional date for this letter; (3) verses 15–16 contain traditional anti-Semitic language that was current after A.D. 70 and which could not have been written by Paul; (4) in terms of form, verse 13 introduces a second “thanksgiving” section, whereas all other Pauline letters have only a single thanksgiving section; (5) persecution of Christians by Jews (v. 14) is said to be unattested at the time Paul wrote the letter.
None of these arguments is convincing.8 (1) Paul is not speaking of all Jews, but only those involved in anti-Christian persecution (see further the commentary below). (2) That Paul has in view here only a small minority of the Jewish people rules out the destruction of the temple as the referent of verse 16. (3) The language is indeed traditional, but its roots are earlier rather than later, as it closely echoes the teachings and language of Jesus. (4) Arguments based on form are inconclusive, as authors occasionally varied their pattern for circumstantial reasons. Galatians, for example, whose authenticity is unquestioned, is the only Pauline letter without an opening thanksgiving. (5) Jewish persecution of Christians goes back to the very beginnings of the church, as the death of Stephen (Acts 7:57–8:1) and Paul’s own testimony (Gal. 1:13, “intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it”; cf. Phil. 3:6) indicate.
In addition to being based on unconvincing arguments, the case for viewing 2:13–16 as an interpolation faces two major obstacles. (1) No persuasive explanation has been offered to explain why someone at some later time would insert this passage into this letter at this place. (2) Every known copy of 1 Thessalonians contains the passage in question. While this absence of textual disturbance does not prove that the passage is authentic, it does create a significant presumption in its favor.9 In sum, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the passage stands as part of the letter.
Is 2 Thessalonians a Fake?
WHILE 1 THESSALONIANS IS almost universally accepted as a genuine Pauline letter, the same cannot be said with regard to 2 Thessalonians. At the present time10 the balance of scholarly opinion tends toward the view that the letter is a fake (the polite term is pseudonymous, i.e., written by one person but falsely published as a letter written by someone else), written by an unknown person sometime between five and fifty years after Paul’s death. The grounds for questioning the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians include the following: (1) the form and structure of 2 Thessalonians is said to be too similar to that of 1 Thessalonians; (2) the vocabulary and style of 2 Thessalonians is said to be too close to that of 1 Thessalonians and too different from that of other Pauline letters; (3) it is claimed that 1 Thessalonians is warm, friendly, and personal, while 2 Thessalonians is cool, distant, and formal; and (4) allegedly there are significant differences in theology between the two letters, especially with regard to eschatology.11
None of these arguments is particularly strong or persuasive. With regard to (1) and (2), for example, if 2 Thessalonians is authentic, we are dealing with two documents written by the same author only a short time apart. Under such circumstances, it is difficult to see how or on what basis one might determine that one is “too close” to the other to be authentic. Furthermore, the differences noted under (2) are of questionable value (all Pauline letters differ from one another to some degree; how does one ascertain when that difference is “too different”?). In any case, the claim about differences between 2 Thessalonians and other Pauline letters proves too much, in that it calls into question not only the second letter but also the first.
Item (3) is an opinion, not an argument or reason; the key question is why are the two letters different. Only if one rules out in advance situational reasons for the differences—the same kind of situational differences that are recognized and acknowledged in interpreting other Pauline letters—can one turn these differences into an argument for inauthenticity.12 As for (4), Robert Jewett rightly observes that a mere “recital of the differences in theological emphasis fails to address the essential weaknesses of such arguments … many of the arguments concerning differences would eliminate 1 Thessalonians as well as 2 Thessalonians and comparable differences surface when one compares other authentic Pauline letters.”13 In sum, a series of weak arguments does not add up to a persuasive case against the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians.
Apart from the inconclusiveness of the arguments against 2 Thessalonians, there is the inability of any forgery hypothesis proposed to date to suggest a historically credible situation or circumstance which can explain (1) why a forged letter might have been written, (2) its relationship to 1 Thessalonians, and (3) how it came to be accepted as part of the Pauline corpus.14 The time frame within which the forgery, if there was one, must have occurred is rather narrow: between the death of Paul in the mid-60s and the formation of the Pauline corpus early in the second century. The closer one places the date of the alleged forgery to Paul’s time, the more difficult it is to explain how it went unchallenged by those who knew Paul. The closer one dates it to the formation of the corpus, the more difficult it becomes to explain both why such a letter was written (since the kind of eschatological issues 2 Thessalonians deals with were no longer “hot topics”) and how it made it into the collection of Paul’s letters. In short, the forgery hypothesis creates as many or more problems as it purports to solve—hardly a characteristic of a convincing theory.
To summarize, three considerations lead me to accept the letter as authentic. (1) It claims to be an authentic Pauline letter. (2) Nothing in the language, style, or theology requires a different conclusion if proper weight is given to the situational character of all the Pauline letters. (3) No one has been able to offer a historically credible explanation of the letter’s origin if it is a forgery. I conclude, therefore, that 2 Thessalonians is a genuine Pauline letter.
Was 2 Thessalonians Written First?
IT HAS OCCASIONALLY been suggested that the historical order of the Thessalonian letters is the opposite of the canonical order.15 Second Thessalonians, it is argued, was in fact the first letter Paul wrote, which Timothy delivered during the visit described in 1 Thessalonians 3:1–6. Since the traditional order of the Pauline letters is based on descending length rather than chronology, there is nothing inherently improbable about the suggestion.
But the arguments offered in support of the suggestion are unpersuasive, indecisive, or a matter of assumption. For example, it is claimed that Paul’s concern for authenticity in 2 Thessalonians 3:17 (“I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters”) only makes sense in a first letter. But if so, then it is strange that none of Paul’s other letters (most of which are first letters) make any such reference. Second, and more significantly, 3:17 implies the possibility of a forged letter. But a forged letter in turn implies the existence of a genuine letter. In short, the verse makes much more sense in a second letter than in a first one. Examples of indecisive arguments include: (1) the observation that in 1:4–5 the Thessalonians are experiencing persecutions, whereas in 1 Thessalonians persecution is referred to as a past experience (persecution could have broken out again after a brief respite); and (2) the claim that the references in 1 Thessalonians to previous instruction (1 Thess. 4:1; 5:1) are to written instruction (they can refer just as well to oral instruction).
In the absence of any persuasive evidence favoring the priority of 2 Thessalonians over 1 Thessalonians, three considerations lead me to accept the traditional order. (1) Second Thessalonians 3:17 makes better sense as part of a second letter rather than a first, especially in light of the references to a purported letter in 2:2 and 2:15. (2) The long description in 1 Thessalonians 1:4–2:12 of Paul’s initial visit to Thessalonica seems more appropriate as part of a first letter. (3) The teaching about the return of Christ in 1 Thessalonians 5:1–11 and 2 Thessalonians 2:1–12 makes better sense if 1 Thessalonians is the earlier letter.16